400 North Capitol Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
- Toll Free 1.888.564.6273
- Local 202.783.3870
Cap and trade remains to be one of the most contentious pieces of proposed domestic legislation in U.S. history. Specifically, the economics of cap and trade, and the scientific grounds on which it is being justified, have both served as the primary basis for its contentiousness. Recently, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) reminded Politico as to why cap and trade is, on the whole, a poorly designed climate change bill.
Regarding the global warming data scandal that was orchestrated by East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit not too long ago, Inhofe emphasizes in a recent Politico interview that global warming science is still chockfull of uncertainties. Reporting on Inhofe’s response to this truth, Politico reports:
If the science behind climate change isn’t definitive, Inhofe argues, how can Congress impose reforms that could wind up being passed on to consumers by way of higher utility bills?
Sen. Inhoffe also sheds some necessary light on the fact that no other feasible economical energy resource currently exists that could adequately fill the void of fossil fuels combustion. Politico reports:
…Inhofe asserts that the energy reform effort will stumble because of the nation’s heavy reliance on fossil fuels, which are both the dirtiest and the most abundant domestic sources of fuel.
Furthermore, Inhofe supplements this claim by stating:
There’s been a wake-up call in America, and people realize that we have to continue to generate electricity. There may be a day when it can be done all with renewables. I’m for renewables. I’m for geothermal. I’m for everything out there,
Finally, Inhofe puts a finishing touch on his rationale against cap and trade by stating:
But if you were to do away with fossil fuels, let’s say, next year, how would you generate enough electricity to run the machine called America? And the answer is, we couldn’t.
Cap and trade is a premature policy approach to an environmental issue that deserves more scientific study. This centrally planned government initiative would overhaul our energy market and therefore put a substantial constraint on economic liberties. Sen. Inhofe’s commentary alludes to a few important points that policymakers, climatologists and bureaucrats who advocate cap and trade, are overlooking considerably. Before policymakers craft and push for legislation that will cost taxpayers trillions of dollars, and take over yet another piece of the private markets, it would be prudent to make sure that the science backing such legislation is legitimate and therefore worthy of such a drastic fiscal initiative.